Well, I wasn’t trusting the Associated Press report or some of the other media reports out there to get the details right, but if the PC(USA) News Service says so, than I guess I must be wrong.

I previously stated that in the case of Stewart v. Mission that since the case was moot because no remedy could be applied (see my earlier post for the details) that the GA PJC had not established the case law.  Specifically, they mentioned the Sheldon case where they ruled that celibate homosexuals may be advanced to candidacy.  There was extra wording in that case that: “However, if the [Presbytery] should determine the Candidate to be ineligible for candidacy at some point in the future, the [Presbytery] should remove the Candidate’s name from the roll of candidates, as provided by G-14.0312.”

Well, the PC News Service Article indicates that this is case law from the Sheldon case and was simply highlighted in this decision.

I stand corrected.